Think P&S's only suck at high ISO?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:36:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Think again. Here's a $600 Canon Powershot SX1 versus an Olympus
E-620 ($799, two zoom lens kit) at 200 ISO.

http://www.pbase.com/image/117651018



Think that P&S 20x super-zoom lenses suck in resolution and CA performance
compared to an easy to figure and manufacture 3x zoom DSLR lens? Think
again:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml


Think P&S cameras can't compete with a medium-format Hasselblad, something
that even a DSLR can't do? Think again:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml


Think that DSLR focal-plane shutters aren't a problem? Think again:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg


Think that teeny 1/2.5 P&S sensors can't have more dynamic range than an
APS-C sized sensor of 7-8 EV stops? Think again:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

In rec.photo.digital Troll Negator wrote:

Think that P&S 20x super-zoom lenses suck in resolution and CA performance
compared to an easy to figure and manufacture 3x zoom DSLR lens? Think
again:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml


Think P&S cameras can't compete with a medium-format Hasselblad, something
that even a DSLR can't do? Think again:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Think that DSLR focal-plane shutters aren't a problem? Think again:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg

Think that teeny 1/2.5 P&S sensors can't have more dynamic range than an
APS-C sized sensor of 7-8 EV stops? Think again:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

I'll be interested to hear what you think *after* reading your
citations above :-)

(If you think you've read them already, try again, more slowly this
time :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

You can now buy a used DSLR in excellent condition for under $300 with
a kit lens from various sources. I bought a Nikon D100 for $125 a
month ago. What kind of clod would spend $200-$500 on a P&S if their
goal was excellent image quality and not portability?

Those of us with real experience and open minds.

Yeah, but some of us with open minds need to shoot football at night under
horrid lighting at ISO 6400. And, to make it worse, a lot of people want to
print those pix. Dammit all.


--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

Rich wrote:

You can now buy a used DSLR in excellent condition for under $300 with
a kit lens from various sources. I bought a Nikon D100 for $125 a
month ago. What kind of clod would spend $200-$500 on a P&S if their
goal was excellent image quality and not portability?

Those that would never consider buying a used electronic product that
lacked any warranty.

You also may find it hard to believe, but for many, if not most users,
achieving the best possible image quality is not their most important
consideration when selecting a camera. If it was, then there would be no
market for non-DSLRs at all.

That said, there are some reasons, beyond image quality, while a D-SLR
is useful. I took my D-SLR to Las Vegas yesterday for the Interbike
trade show. On the plus side, people kept thinking that I was part of
the press contingent, but it was rather a pain to carry the D-SLR. The
real reason I took it was because I needed the more powerful flash on
the trade show floor, though I could have stuck the same flash on my old
G2 instead of the D-SLR. Actually, as it turned out, what was really
good was having the wide angle lens with me (10-22mm = 16-35mm). This
enable me to get a lot of good photos that would not have been possible
with my "walking around lens" a 28-105mm (45mm-168mm). This is why I was
trying to buy a used 17-85mm IS earlier in the week, to no avail, but
the 10-22mm non-IS worked out fine. With the G2, I could not have gotten
such a wide angle, even with the adapter lens I have, and those adapter
lenses are very marginal in quality.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:47:52 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:



"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

You can now buy a used DSLR in excellent condition for under $300 with
a kit lens from various sources. I bought a Nikon D100 for $125 a
month ago. What kind of clod would spend $200-$500 on a P&S if their
goal was excellent image quality and not portability?

Those of us with real experience and open minds.

Yeah, but some of us with open minds need to shoot football at night under
horrid lighting at ISO 6400. And, to make it worse, a lot of people want to
print those pix. Dammit all.


99% of all professional photographers know how to pan with their subject
using only ASA64 film all their lives. Knowing how to capture the subject
properly, blurring the background while keeping the subject sharp so the
feeling of motion is properly retained in a still images of action
subjects. As opposed to the moronic beginner snapshooter that doesn't know
any of this and has to use fast shutter speeds and high ISOs to get any
kind of sharp subject at all. 99% of all other photographers know their
subject well enough to snap the shutter at the moment when activity reaches
a peak, as they've done all their lives. Capturing that jump-shot on the
basketball court, or when the football player leaps into the air and
momentarily stops just as he's catching that pass in mid-air, or when
opposing forces of a tackle momentarily cancel each other out. 99% of all
other photographers don't consider ISO100 any kind of limitation at all. Of
those 99% of all other photographers the vast majority of them could care
less about moronic over-aggrandized and over-paid apes running around on a
football field in dimly lit conditions whose only goal is trying to prove
their dicks are longer than the other teams' dicks. Personally, I've never
been attracted to the idea of a bunch of insecure idiot men laying on top
of each other and grabbing each others' asses to prove how masculine and
hetero they are. But I bet you find that of great interest. So much so that
you don't even know how to use a camera properly and must depend on a
snapshooter's ISO6400 crutch to capture images of male morons laying on top
of each other for you to save and savor.

"The Other 99 Percent" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:47:52 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:



"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

You can now buy a used DSLR in excellent condition for under $300 with
a kit lens from various sources. I bought a Nikon D100 for $125 a
month ago. What kind of clod would spend $200-$500 on a P&S if their
goal was excellent image quality and not portability?

Those of us with real experience and open minds.

Yeah, but some of us with open minds need to shoot football at night under
horrid lighting at ISO 6400. And, to make it worse, a lot of people want
to
print those pix. Dammit all.


99% of all professional photographers know how to pan with their subject
using only ASA64 film all their lives. Knowing how to capture the subject
properly, blurring the background while keeping the subject sharp so the
feeling of motion is properly retained in a still images of action
subjects. As opposed to the moronic beginner snapshooter that doesn't know
any of this and has to use fast shutter speeds and high ISOs to get any
kind of sharp subject at all. 99% of all other photographers know their
subject well enough to snap the shutter at the moment when activity
reaches
a peak, as they've done all their lives. Capturing that jump-shot on the
basketball court, or when the football player leaps into the air and
momentarily stops just as he's catching that pass in mid-air, or when
opposing forces of a tackle momentarily cancel each other out. 99% of all
other photographers don't consider ISO100 any kind of limitation at all.
Of
those 99% of all other photographers the vast majority of them could care
less about moronic over-aggrandized and over-paid apes running around on a
football field in dimly lit conditions whose only goal is trying to prove
their dicks are longer than the other teams' dicks. Personally, I've never
been attracted to the idea of a bunch of insecure idiot men laying on top
of each other and grabbing each others' asses to prove how masculine and
hetero they are. But I bet you find that of great interest. So much so
that
you don't even know how to use a camera properly and must depend on a
snapshooter's ISO6400 crutch to capture images of male morons laying on
top
of each other for you to save and savor.

I defy you to shoot one of my games using an ISO 64 film and get one usable
shot. Here's you challenge, you simple troll: go shoot a night high school
football game, at a typical HS field and bring back one sharp action shot. I
know two things: how to use a camera, and that you're an asshole.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:47:52 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..

Those of us with real experience and open minds.

Yeah, but some of us with open minds need to shoot football at night under
horrid lighting at ISO 6400. And, to make it worse, a lot of people want
to
print those pix. Dammit all.

I don't. "Different strokes for different folks."

Understood. In another post, "99" told me I'm using ISO 6400 as a crutch
since I should be able to shoot those games at ISO 64 and pan my subjects.
Right. My typical shots are around 1/350th at 4f. At ISO 64, seven stops
lower in shutter speed, I'm shooting at somewhere around 1/10th of a second
shutter speed. Right...